The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
This article proposes to outline the 2019 judgments of Re L and Re H, and then take a brief look at where one might turn for further expertise regarding how best to address the psychological impact on the child of an ‘alienation’-type scenario.
Meta Title :A changing tide in change of residence?
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Sep 1, 2020, 23:00 PM
Article ID :
Kate Armstrong, Dere Street
Following the High Court decisions in Re L  EWHC 867 (Fam) and Re H  EWHC 2723 (Fam) last year, there has been a distinct shift of mood in private law proceedings away from the ‘last resort’ approach to change of residence, arguably bringing jurisprudence in line with the available psychological research. Leaving aside whether ‘parental alienation syndrome’ is an identifiable syndrome, or a useful label for a bundle of behaviours, the courts have chosen to refocus on the welfare needs of the child and how these can best be met, with a consequent renewed emphasis on allowing and promoting a relationship with both parents. This is of course firmly in line with the statutory presumption in s 1(2A) CA 1989 that such a dual relationship will be in the child’s best interests.
This article proposes to outline the 2019 judgments of Re L and Re H, and then take a brief look at where one might turn for further expertise regarding how best to address the psychological impact on the child of an ‘alienation’-type scenario. The longer-term impact of the global pandemic in these situations remains to be seen.
The full article will be published in the September issue of Family Law.